ok, dirty anon... as these posts sink in red - let me try to explain this one more time

the library uses the fees to replace the book. every single person who wants the book needs the physical book, which costs to replace. a downloaded file only needs to be physically owned once...so it doesn't need to be replaced..

the comparison would only work if torrent sites charged a fine for not seeding.

The music industry is run by a handful of record moguls that own a very, very large portion of everything in music distribution. When someone downloads one album, that company loses out on however much it costs to produce one copy of that album (minus the 2-5 cents that goes to the band whose album is being purchased/downloaded). Therefore, you will hear the record labels complaining about the illegal downloading of music whereas the artist finds it to be a handy tool in getting heads in the door of a show where they can sell the merch that is their entire livelihood on the road. When it boils down to it, if the artist owns the rights to the music, it should be up to them if the downloading of their music really is "illegal" or not. Being a touring musician, I've learned a few things along the way about the industry. Labels get away with so much, it's sickening.

Libraries buy the books, but other people might buy an album and put it on a file sharing site, so the concept is pretty much the same.

They should do what Iron Maiden I think it was them did a while ago where they just held shows in the areas that torrent their music the most, and not do what Metallica again, I think it was them did and whine like little bitches that they don't get the half a cent per album torrented from their millions of dollars they get per year.

Metallica made a huge ordeal out of Napster, but they also come from a different era of the music industry. They were around when bands actually DID make a lot of money, when they were on the same level as the labels themselves. This was what I deem the "Rockstar Era" when you'd see bands that would trash up a hotel and get away with it because they could afford. But I digress. Metallica was also around when the internet began changing the music industry. People were starting to share music files, Napster was beginning its file sharing days and iTunes was soon to change it even more by letting people only purchase one song at a time if they so desired. I understand why Metallica did what they did, but they need to worry about themselves. They can't play in America anymore because they can't afford to. It costs 1-2 Million for them to play, and no venue wants to pay that much here. So now they play all their shows in other countries that would kill to have them there because that's the only way they will be able to afford to keep doing what they're doing. Metallica isn't the greatest business role model, but then again, we still need to find the great role model of today's music industry.

I mostly torrent games, but don't keep them for long since most of latest releases simply bore me.
But Lord Almighty if I ever think about torrenting an Indie game I will chop my balls off with rusty razor, although this might be a bit of exaggeration but in most cases people who create Indies deserve all the money they get, Dust an Elysian Tail, Guacamelee or Giana Sisters are good examples.

Actually, piracy has been proven to HELP the music industry. Rolling Stone did some research on the subject and found it very helpful.
If you download something and like it, you're more likely to buy something else than not. You could, of course, have bought the first album, but this is not always common, especially if it's a band you don't know. You're also more likely to attend live events when you know you like their songs. So, overall, piracy is helping the music industry.

Nailed it.
Piracy helps bands get discovered by the fans. The labels are the ones that lose out on anything, even though it really isn't all that much in the long run. The labels are getting the money when a headlining band plays a show. The labels get the money from record sales, from the licensing of music, etc. The bands make money off of merch sales and licensing (it's typically split between labels and bands). Hopefully a band owns the rights to their music to avoid real controversy down the road.

I don't blame you. People still buy hard copies of albums anyway, because you can't sign an MP3 file. I download a lot of music for free unless it's a band I either know personally or support entirely. Then, I buy albums, shirts, or anything to help support those bands.

the largest portion of books in libraries are non-fiction and the government purchases them so people can have access to that information. Now that you can purchase any book online and even read most books for free on the internet, the government saves money and can use it for other things.

Fiction books usually have a run on the market and have several editions published before they would end up in a library. So it might take 15-30 years for, say, a Steven King novel to make it to the library shelves. This guarantees that the public pay for these works of art/entertainment for as long as possible before that art becomes public domain and is made freely available.

Similarly, when a record comes out, the publishers sell it as much as possible. They might initially produce 100,000 records. If that sells well in, say, North America, then they produce another few million for North America, Europe and Asia. Music becomes public domain after 25 years, I think, so the publishers/record companies try to squeeze as much as they can out of them until then. People downloading and sharing albums loses them money. That's why spotify/iTunes/amazon-music/cdbaby are ways for the publishers to continue making money by offering music at reduced prices because they no longer have to pay for physical CD manufacture and shipping/warehousing.

The big loser is the artist. A traditional '90s contract was for the band to take 6% of record sales (less the production costs). Plus they usually have to pay back the recording and sometimes even marketing costs. CD prices go down or are nonexistent, meaning markup is nonexistent. CDs used to sell for 20 credits each, and manufacture costs were maybe 25% of that. These days people just download a song for 1 credit. Even if they have 1 million plays, that's only 60,000 credits - enough to pay one band member's salary or for 30 days of studio time with an a-list producer.

Now from the remaining 94 cents per track, usually spotify/iTunes/whatever takes 50 cents from it, leaving 44 cents for the record company. After a million plays, they have earned 440,000 credits. From that they pay advertising, lawyers, office costs, and need to put some money in the bank to pay for bands to record. Don't forget taxes, either!

So basically nobody can make tons of money on record sales these days. There are simply too many artists out there and everybody wants their piece of the pie. So when you go to shows or buy merchandise, then you're really supporting the artist. That's why a lot of record companies own marketing and promotion companies, so they can get in on earning from the tours. For big acts like AC/DC or Justin Bieber, the tour costs can reach 500,000 credits PER GIG - but the take can be around 3 million!

In the end, art is art and we should appreciate it. If an artist only makes good art when he's getting paid or his art is changed by someone in order to make it sell better, then it's no longer art - it's entertainment. J.Biebs is an entertainer. AC/DC are artists.